You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to derby-dev@db.apache.org by Andrew McIntyre <mc...@gmail.com> on 2005/10/25 20:18:21 UTC
Re: potential release candidate
On 10/23/05, Kathey Marsden <km...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> The doc did not
> have a top level index, just the directories for the individual
> manuals. Is that correct?
That is correct, but it would be a good idea to have one. A JIRA entry
for creating a top-level and/or docs-level index.html should be filed.
The only problem I found with the contents is that tools/release was
not included in the -src distribution, but that's a minor nit and not
a showstopper, in my opinion. I didn't scan every single directory in
the -src distribution, but the high-level view looks good.
> Andrew, please check it out and give it your official release manager
> thumbs up or thumbs down to proceed with testing.
Thumbs up.
> 1) I signed the release manually, see below for details, so please
> double check that it is signed properly.
Looks good.
> Step 8)
> - I could not modify the packaging.properties as instructed,
> because it would cause a svn modified svn number in the release.
I'll move packaging.properties to a different filename
(packaging.tmpl, i suppose, to indicate its a template) and add a note
about copying the file to packaging.properties and modifying it to
contain proper values for your system.
> Step 9)
> - It might be good to add a note to check your classpath for
> osgi.jar for OSGI support and make sure jsr169compile.classpath is set
> for J2ME support.
Yes, this is important. Thanks for thinking of that.
<snip problems with signing>
That's unfortunate the the signing bit was pretty much a wash, since
it worked for me. I'll include an example for signing the whole thing
with a (non-Ant) script.
> - Is there anything else that happens after the md5 target
> besides signing the release? Since I aborted the release target I want
> to make sure I didn't miss anything.
Nope.
> Step 12)
> I think the last digit should be bumped after the distribution is
> posted based our discussion earlier that the last digit should be bumped
> after any snapshot or release candidate is made.
Sure, I'll move this up the list.
andrew